Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

You must have not read the sentence immediately following my comment about it being stupid. Instead of paying 3 firms money to do the same thing. They could pay 3 firms money to do 3 different things. That would distribute the same amount of money but provide us with 3 valuable things instead of 1 valuable thing and 2 useless duplicates. Whether or not we should redistribute wealth is an entirely separate conversation from how to do it most effectively.

There is nothing preventing governments from being efficient and they sometimes are. The problem is that there also isn't anything keeping the government from being inefficient. Companies that are run horribly inefficiently tend not to last too long because they can go out of business (obviously doesn't apply to government enforced monopolies). If the government is horribly inefficient the general punishment is that they get more funding. To summarize, natural selection operates more in a capitalist market than it does in a government. That isn't to say how natural selection operates in markets is all good but it tends to make them more efficient (child labor can be quite efficient).

You may be right about the "make work" projects but that doesn't make it not exceedingly stupid. How about they pay their own worker to do that work and use the other money to get other things. If they do that they are providing more value for everyone while distributing money.

I took a women's studies class (Women, Gender, Religion, and Society) in college and roughly a third of the class were feminazis. They are not a fabled creature, they are real. We read papers written by femninazis, one of which talked about how Catholicism was invented by men for the sole purpose of oppressing women. The few men in the room would get glares as people discussed the papers discussing why men are evil and how the world would be a much better place if it were run by women. I won't disagree that they have been used to malign feminists but that doesn't mean they aren't real and don't have any impact. The people who are heard the most are the people who scream the loudest. Feminazis are pissed off, scream loudly, and are active in the court system. You can pretend they don't exist if you wish but you aren't doing anyone any favors.

I didn't say feminists because I didn't mean feminists. I am male and I am a feminist. I believe men and women should be treated equally under the law and should not be discriminated against solely based on their gender unless there is a good, physiological reason to do so. For example, women's bathrooms should not need to contain urinals even though that is a form of discrimination. Femnazi's are radical, rabid people who hate men and think all men are out to get and oppress all women. Femnazi's, as I described, fight to end all discriminatory practices against women but hold onto discriminatory practices against men.

You are missing the heart of the matter. The real issue is that preferential treatment towards men is considered wrong regardless of any considerations while preferential treatment towards women is okay as long as it has a justification. Charging men less than women for haircuts because, by and large, their haircuts take less time and attention is unlawful discrimination even though it has a perfectly reasonable justification. Your explanation does make sense and could be seen as a reasonable justification. However, if we allow discrimination in favor of women in some cases we should also allow it for men in some cases as well. Femnatzis battle to take away all discriminatory advantages held by men while retaining all discriminatory advantages held by women.

The government needs to collect some money to provide essential services so it needs to have some taxes. Taxes discourage whatever behavior the tax is applied to. If you tax employing people, less people will be employed. If you tax cigarettes, people will buy less cigarettes. If you have to tax something, you may as well tax behaviors you want to discourage instead of behaviors you want to encourage. Pollution is a good candidate because it has negative third party effects that can be hard to quantify and its reduction benefits everyone. Using a tax provides incentives that will drive the market in a direction we want, regulations tend to arbitrarily restrict things based on what a small committee of industry placed people decree.

As long as the government actually enforces property rights, enforces contracts, prosecute fraud, and punishes anti-competitive behavior, regulations are largely unnecessary. Most cases of "but what if an evil corporation does x, y, or z" are actually already punishable by law, regulation generally tries to prevent it from happening instead of punishing those that do it. The problem with that approach is that a regulation aimed at preventing something punishes 999 companies that have been doing the right thing with unnecessary testing, documentation, and standards because 1 company did the wrong thing. We would be better off making an example of the 1 company and letting the other 999 flourish.

Child labor is an example of something people try to get rid of through laws and regulations but is nearly pointless, from a global perspective, unless import restrictions are in place. I wasn't advocating banning child labor or imposing any particular environmental restrictions.

Money is as much an information delivery system as anything else. It communicates to people what they have to give up in order to get something else. For example, if you apply a pollution tax (such as charge companies per ton of C02 produced) then you communicate to companies that producing C02 will harm their bottom line and it is worth it for them to spend money to reduce their pollution output. You aren't telling them how to do it or even mandating it, you are making reducing pollution in their own self interest. A pollution tax would also have the effect of increasing the costs of goods and services that produce pollution so consumers will choose to avoid products that create the most pollution or pay the price for it.

I'm not arguing for any particular tax or system, I am pointing out that "rely[ing] on money" is actually a sure fire way to alter peoples behavior. Money is not all about greed, it is a useful and necessary tool.

Having strict environmental and labor regulations pushes the problems they try to solve out to other countries unless there are matching import restrictions. If you outlaw child labor then buy things from someone who uses child labor it nearly defeats the purpose of outlawing child labor. Same goes for environmental concerns. Sure, it helps your children and your backyard (which may be all you need/want) but it doesn't really help any global problems.

I know that may seem like an oxymoron to some people but there are ways to do it. Only go 3 times a week. That is 4ish hours total out of your week (1 hour workout + some travel time) which isn't all that much. At three times a week you won't be smashing yourself into a brick wall physically (as can happen with crossfit). Find a CF gym where the trainers actually watch you and have a good on ramp program. Having a group to workout with is motivating for most people, especially when you know they will notice you didn't show up since you typically go to the same classes.

Having a set time that you go each time is good motivation wise and helps prevent the rolling "I'll go in just one more hour" which leads to "well, it's too late to go now."

I would say doing a structured weight training program would actually be better for you physically and be more optimal time wise but it requires much more self motivation and discipline than going to a CF gym.

Above all, be safe and actually do something. Doing something is, usually, better than doing nothing so find what you will actually be motivated to do. I know tons of people who normally wouldn't be motivated enough to show up at the gym but consistently show up to a CF gym.

That is what you infer he is arguing, that isn't what he is arguing based on the articles that have been posted to slashdot. Perhaps there is some external argument that he made that you are correct about.
From the original article summary:

He is also a Christian minister, who contends that there is no real conflict between religion and science, citing the writings and views of Saint Augustine as a guide on melding the two.

From the man himself:

Whom do we thank for over two thousand years of scientific advancement? Aristotle and his translators. University founders. Museum builders. Field surveyors employed by governments. Did religious folks help? Of course.

These don't seem to go along at all with what you are saying, they support my position. The only part that is even close to what you and the OP are saying is when he called all of the "what if" questions "silly." If he means they are silly in the sense that he easily proved them wrong then you are correct. If he means they are silly because all such "what if" questions are silly, then you are wrong. I don't see why anyone would waste time trying to publicly disprove "silly" questions so I assume the later interpretation.

Did you actually read the article or did you just skim it for quotes to knee jerk react to?

It seems you think it was reading religious texts and allowing God to work through them? Not actually excavations, logical thinking and their daring to challenge the status quo?

Who are you even talking about? Where in the article did it state or even imply that their scientific explorations were due to them being religious? The entire point of his article is that it is possible for a religious person to also be scientific in some regards. Not that religion causes people to be scientific.

Yeah, that's really depressing to know that someone can have a doctorate from Yale and Harvard and cling to this idea that science owes its existence to religion

He didn't say give credit of the existence of science to religion. He was obviously talking about giving credit to religious people for the scientific contributions they made. Seriously, stop reading into things and assuming so much. You don't have to agree with what he said but if you are going to disagree at least disagree with what he said.